RE: [xliff-inline] Type of codes

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi Arle, all,

> But my thought is that there is no sense in making 
> a solution that is more elaborate than what most 
> tools actually do. Part of the answer to this 
> question should be based on how do we support what 
> the tools do and need.

Actually I don't think it matters: any of the proposed notation handles the same functionalities as far as using standalone or open/close codes. Only the syntax changes.

As for not providing an open/close functionality because some tools (and they are quite a few indeed) do not support those type of codes, I think it would cause an important lose of functionality.
We would not be able to map 1.2 file to 2.0 anymore for example; QA tools which use open/close for validation would not be able to work very well; etc.

It would penalize quite a few tools, and I have no doubt that we would end up with custom extensions to fill the need :)

By the way: Bryan, Fredrik: thanks for posting your viewpoints too. It should help in the decision next week. Hopefully we'll get more posts on the topic.

Cheers,
-yves